We're still on Wicket 1.4, we find enclosures convenient and we don't have access to queuing (though we originally requested for it). What would matter to us is rendering performance/efficiency.
So far upgrading has been more effort than it's worth to justify, but it's been fun watching the speed of upgrades. Keep it up ;) ** Martin ti 11. toukok. 2021 klo 5.05 Chris Colman (chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com) kirjoitti: > Queuing - have not used it yet. Never really had a problem with 'adding' > components in the traditional way. Sometimes when we change > layouts/component hierarchies I feel that most of these changes are non > trivial and the queuing feature may not have helped in these scenarios > anyway. Sounds ok for the simple layout changes though. > > Enclosures - widespread use of these in our apps. I find them very > convenient. > > On 11/05/2021 6:23 am, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> François > >> > >> > >> > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <reier...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > >>> <tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto: > tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > >>>> > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > >>>> > >>>> — Martin's list — > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty > / > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I > would > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used > rarely > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > >>>> > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things > to > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > >>> > >>> > >>>> kind regards > >>>> > >>>> Tobias > >>>> > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > >>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers > holding > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode > for > >>>> us. > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed.... > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> KB > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Have fun > >>>>>>> Sven > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > thinking/working > >>>> on > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > >>>> covered > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it > is > >>>> going > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > >>>> Wicket > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java > 17 > >>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > still > >>>> use > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >
